People at high risk for psychosis access primary care mental health services for depression and anxiety and are unlikely to recover from these affective symptoms. We report the first controlled trial of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression and anxiety, minimally adapted for psychosis risk, in primary care.

To evaluate feasibility, acceptability and signals of efficacy for CBT for depression and anxiety adapted for psychosis risk, designed in collaboration with people with psychosis.

A longitudinal controlled trial comparing best practice CBT for depression and anxiety (CBT-BP) with CBT adapted for psychosis risk (CBT-PR), in patients meeting criteria for UK primary care services and who are also clinically high risk for psychosis (trial registration no. ISRCTN40678).

Rates of recruitment (55 to CBT-BP, 44 to CBT-PR), completion of measures (90% CBT-BP, 94% CBT-PR) and retention in therapy (75% CBT-BP, 95% CBT-PR) demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of the adapted therapy. Routine measures of depression and anxiety signal improved clinical and recovery outcomes for CBT-PR. Psychosis and relational measures signal sustained improvement (at 3 months) in the CBT-PR group. No serious adverse events were reported.

Primary care mental health services present a unique opportunity to identify and treat people at risk of psychosis at a time when they are help-seeking. CBT for depression and anxiety, minimally adapted for psychosis risk, can be delivered in routine services, and is likely to improve clinical and recovery outcomes and reduce psychosis risk. A definitive trial is needed to estimate clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Economic variables such as socioeconomic status and debt are linked with an increased risk of a range of mental health problems and appear to increase the risk of developing of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previous research has shown that people living in more deprived areas have more severe symptoms of depression and anxiety after treatment in England’s NHS Talking Therapies services. However, no research has examined if there is a relationship between neighbourhood deprivation and outcomes for PTSD specifically. This study was an audit of existing data from a single NHS Talking Therapies service. The postcodes of 138 service users who had received psychological therapy for PTSD were used to link data from the English Indices of Deprivation. This was analysed with the PCL-5 measure of PTSD symptoms pre- and post-treatment. There was no significant association between neighbourhood deprivation measures on risk of drop-out from therapy for PTSD, number of sessions received or PTSD symptom severity at the start of treatment. However, post-treatment PCL-5 scores were significantly more severe for those living in highly deprived neighbourhoods, with lower estimated income and greater health and disability. There was also a non-significant trend for the same pattern based on employment and crime rates. There was no impact of access to housing and services or living environment. Those living in more deprived neighbourhoods experienced less of a reduction in PTSD symptoms after treatment from NHS Talking Therapies services. Given the small sample size in a single city, this finding needs to be replicated with a larger sample.

1. (1) Previous literature has shown that socioeconomic deprivation increases the risk of a range of mental health problems.

2. (2) Existing research suggests that economic variables such as income and employment are associated with greater incidence of PTSD.

3. (3) In the current study, those living in more deprived areas experienced less of a reduction in PTSD symptoms following psychological therapy through NHS Talking Therapies.

4. (4) The relatively poorer treatment outcomes in the current study are not explained by differences in baseline PTSD severity or drop-out rates, which were not significantly different comparing patients from different socioeconomic strata.